The Professional Tennis Players Association (“PTPA”) has launched a major competition law challenge against the governance framework of professional tennis. Filed in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union, the proceedings allege that the ATP, WTA, ITF, ITIA and the four Grand Slam tournaments have engaged in anti‑competitive coordination that suppresses player earnings, restricts commercial autonomy and enforces mandatory scheduling. These claims raise fundamental questions about competition law compliance and governance in the sport.
The situation is further complicated by the recent settlement between the PTPA and Tennis Australia, and by simultaneous commercial merger discussions between the ATP and WTA. Together, these developments create legal and strategic uncertainty for governing bodies, players and commercial partners.
Background: Fragmented Governance in Professional Tennis
Unlike most professional sports, tennis operates without a single, unified governing body. Instead, responsibility for regulation, competition structures and commercial arrangements is distributed among several institutions:
- Association of Tennis Professionals (“ATP”)
- Women's Tennis Association (“WTA”)
- International Tennis Federation (“ITF”)
- International Tennis Integrity Agency (“ITIA”)
The four Grand Slam tournaments also operate independently:
- Wimbledon Championships
- Roland Garros/French Open
- US Open
- Australian Open
This fragmented governance has supported substantial commercial growth, but has also created persistent tensions between players and organisers. The PTPA, co founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2020, was established to strengthen collective player representation and challenge what its founders saw as systemic imbalances.
The Litigation: Claims and Procedural Progress
Allegations
In March 2025, the PTPA and a group of current and former players filed class actions alleging that the sport’s governing bodies:
- suppress player prize money relative to total tournament revenues;
- maintain a ranking system that de facto compels participation;
- restrict players’ commercial and sponsorship opportunities; and
- enforce onerous schedules with punitive sanctions for non participation.
The Defendants characterise these claims as baseless, asserting that rankings, schedules and testing regimes are essential to preserve competitive integrity and the global calendar.
Djokovic’s Departure from the PTPA
Notably, in January 2026, Novak Djokovic announced that he was stepping away from the PTPA, citing “ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented” within the organisation. Djokovic had supported the PTPA’s mission but disagreed with aspects of its direction and legal strategy and was not a named Claimant in the lawsuit. His departure reflects internal governance tensions and carries strategic and reputational implications for the PTPA’s litigation and public positioning.
Procedural Developments
Key milestones include:
- May 2025: A US court ruled that the ATP could not penalise players for joining the lawsuit.
- September 2025: The Grand Slam tournaments were added as Defendants.
- December 2025: Tennis Australia settled with the PTPA.
- January 2026: Settlement terms were filed publicly, and the remaining Defendants filed motions to dismiss, including jurisdictional challenges in respect of non US entities.
The Tennis Australia Settlement
The settlement with Tennis Australia is the most significant litigation development to date. While financial terms remain confidential, public filings confirm that Tennis Australia agreed to provide cooperation and consultation to support the PTPA’s ongoing claims. The settlement was published coincidentally with the opening of the 2026 Australian Open and appears to have been timed to encourage other Defendants to engage in settlement discussions.
Craig Tiley, who oversaw Tennis Australia at the time of the settlement, has since become CEO of the United States Tennis Association, adding some complexity to the USTA’s approach to the litigation.
Competition Law Analysis
Market Definition and Monopsony
A central legal issue in the litigation is the definition of the relevant market for competition law purposes. The Defendants contend that professional tennis tournaments in different jurisdictions, on different surfaces and at different times of year, cannot reasonably be treated as a single market, arguing that each event is independent and subject to local organisation. By contrast, the PTPA frames the market more broadly, defining it as the market in which professional tennis players supply their labour and commercial value to governing bodies and tournament organisers. Within this framework, the PTPA alleges that the ATP, WTA, ITF and Grand Slam organisers collectively exercise monopsony power – a buyer‑side dominance that enables them to set conditions of employment, determine prize money and restrict sponsorship and commercial opportunities in a way that suppresses overall player compensation. Establishing this market definition is crucial, as it underpins the claim that these governing bodies have coordinated in a manner that restricts competition and limits players’ economic freedom.
Rule of Reason Assessment
Under UK, EU and US competition law, the alleged conduct will generally be assessed under the rule of reason or its equivalent. This legal standard requires courts to weigh the procompetitive justifications for a particular practice against any anticompetitive effects, rather than treating the conduct as automatically unlawful. In other words, the court examines whether the governing bodies’ actions, such as the ranking system, mandatory tournament schedules, and integrity or anti-doping regimes, produce overall benefits for the sport that outweigh any harm to competition, including suppression of player earnings or restriction of commercial freedom. The Defendants are expected to argue that these measures are legitimate, necessary for the proper organisation of the sport, and enhance its integrity and commercial value.
UK and EU Proceedings
Parallel claims in the UK involve the Competition Act 1998 (Chapters I and II), and in the EU invoke Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Jurisdictional challenges by Wimbledon and the French Tennis Federation may determine the extent to which US courts can preside over foreign Defendants.
ATP-WTA Merger and Governance Reform
Discussions about a potential merger between the ATP and WTA aim to unify commercial operations. However, financial asymmetries and institutional interests, including private equity involvement in the WTA, complicates negotiations. Any merger would require competition law scrutiny in the UK and EU, particularly regarding market access and restrictive practices.
Implications for Stakeholders
Governing bodies and tournament organisers should review contracts, revenue sharing arrangements and dispute resolution clauses for competition law risk, and consider proactive governance reforms.
Players and player representatives should seek independent advice regarding participation in collective proceedings and contractual consequences.
Broadcasters and commercial partners should assess contractual protections for material adverse change and force majeure in light of potential structural shifts in the sport..
What Happens Next
The outcome of motions to dismiss will determine whether the case proceeds to full discovery, a resource‑intensive phase of transnational litigation. Class certification will be another pivotal issue, given the diversity nature of player circumstances. The Tennis Australia settlement strengthens the PTPA’s position, but the strategies of the remaining Defendants will shape developments over the coming 12-18 months.
How Culbert Ellis Can Assist
Our Sports Law team can advise governing bodies, tournament operators, players, agents, broadcasters and commercial partners on UK competition law and related regulatory matters, including:
- Competition law compliance and antitrust risk assessment under UK and EU rules;
- Player contract review and dispute resolution under English law;
- Settlement strategy in multi-party litigation;
- Governance reform and player representation frameworks;
- Regulatory analysis of mergers and joint ventures in the UK context;
- Broadcast and sponsorship contract advice under English law.
How To Get In Contact
For further guidance on these issues, please contact Wing Ming Choi at wingming.choi@culbertellis.com or call +44 (0)203 987 0222.
Accurate at the time of writing. This information is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
.avif)
